Parallel Method vs Parallel Flaw

andrea.leclerc-1

What is the difference in process & identification between these two question types? I feel like in parallel method you identify the flaw as a means of finding its match - so i dont really see how they are different. Can someone help me understand?

spittingnickels

parallel method questions only have a flaw about half the time. so half the time you are paralleling a GOOD argument. match the parts to each other is what id suggest. and never prioritize the subject matter of the stimulus or answer choices.

i should just say, parallel questions are entirely based on analogical reasoning : reasoning by analogy. a great book about analogies is Surfaces And Essences by Douglas Hofstadter. ive always been kind of obsessed with analogy as a tool for thinking and this book gives analogy its proper due

fun fact : i think it was the first book ever sold on amazon

andrea.leclerc-1

thank you for this!

taylorm97

Parallel method questions are like the previous answer above in that they are analogous to the stimulus. The logical reasoning in your AC must match that in the stimulus. I tend to pay close attention to stimulus with and/or statements because those must match the AC. For example, if the stimulus presents two ideas joined by 'and' then the AC must present two ideas joined by and. Keep in mind contrapositives though, as the and flips to or and or flips to and. Diagramming helps with these, but they're not always diagrammable.

Parallel flaw is only matching the flaw. So, unlike parallel method it doesn't have to be exactly the same in structure. Only the flaw in the argument has to be the same. These are also heavily diagrammable, but the order in which conditional relationship flaws appear in the stimulus will often be rearranged in the AC. Ones that are not diagrammable are more tricky. I still struggle with those.

andrea.leclerc-1

ty!